Efforts to Reexamine Federal Science Policy and Funding

There has been much discussion about the need for a new federal science policy. Two recent efforts to examine this question are summarized below:

CONGRESSIONAL SCIENCE POLICY STUDY

With Congress back in session this week, activity surrounding a House Science Committee “Science Policy Study” will intensify. This effort, headed by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), vice chairman of the committee, is to “conduct a comprehensive review of our national science policy and develop a new, sensible, coherent long-range science and technology policy.”

In remarks last fall, Ehlers laid out the rationale for this study: “The basis for our economic engine in this nation is science and technology. The discoveries that we make today are going to fuel the economy 30 to 50 years hence, just as today our economy is fueled by the discoveries of three to five decades ago. Thus it is very important for us to have a national science policy that reflects that change in atmosphere between the U.S. and the rest of the world, that reflects the change in science, that reflects the change in foreign relations, and that, in particular, reflects the change in economic structures in the world today.”

This effort started with a meeting of 35 prominent scientists and policy makers, and a similar meeting with “early career” scientists. In each meeting, Ehlers posed a series of policy questions to formulate an overall “vision.” These same questions are posted on a science committee web site where Ehlers invites citizen participation.

The questions are: “1. On what broad national goals should federal science policy be based? 2. (a) What is the government’s role in supporting basic and applied research? (b) How can the government best encourage an effective level of industry investment in pre-competitive research? 3. How can the nation enhance and make the most effective use of government/university/industry research partnerships? 4. What is the most effective role for the states in supporting university research, and how can the federal government best support that role? 5. (a) Given the increasingly international nature of science, how can the nation best benefit from and contribute to international cooperation in research? (b) What types of multilateral science agreements are needed to facilitate international collaboration? 6. How can the federal government best help meet national needs for science and math education at all levels? 7. How can the nation most effectively leverage federally funded R&D in the face of increasingly constrained resources?”

Congressional staff suggests that the resulting study will be around 40 pages long. Ehlers, who wants this to be an accessible document for his colleagues, describes it as being “concise, coherent, and comprehensive.” The target date for the study’s completion is the middle of this year. A longer term goal is possible legislation.

Ehlers, a physicist, has made many appearances discussing this study. He is friendly and down to earth, and is making this a bipartisan effort. Ehlers will hold between five and seven hearings relating to this study over the next few months.

It is notable that Ehlers is soliciting citizen participation in the formulation of this report. The address for the House Science Committee web site for the Science Policy Study is http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_study.htm This site contains the questions listed above, background materials, and other items of interest. Readers interested in responding to the questions should bear the following in mind: the committee staff handling this study is limited. Responses should be concise -- preferably a few pages at most.

In a recent editorial in Science magazine, Ehlers concluded: “Science has changed since 1945, and so has the world. It is time to address these changes and chart our course correspondingly.”

NSB WORKING PAPER: “GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH”

In an 11-page working paper dated December 4, 1997, the National Science Board (NSB) “offers its perspective...concerning the funding of scientific research by the Federal government.” The paper (at http://www.nsf.gov/home/nsb/pubs/nsb97186/nsb97186.htm on the Web) contributes to the discussion of a national policy to coordinate and prioritize Federal research investments. “Presently,” the Board says, “there is no widely accepted way for the Federal government in conjunction with the scientific community to make priority decisions about the allocation of resources in and across scientific disciplines.”

Intended to address only funding for research, the report first discusses the distinction between research and development, while “recognizing that there are instances where the boundaries blur.” It then reviews the post-World War II rationale for justifying federal support of science, and concludes that, although time has brought changes, “we believe that none would invalidate the justification for wise government support of research.” The Board adds, “Changes in national priorities do not negate the potential of research benefits which are long term and uncertain in detail but have proved over time to be substantial.”

To improve the effectiveness of the government’s investment, the Board urges greater coordination of the Federal portfolio across all disciplines, as recommended in a 1995 National Academy of Sciences report (see FYI #171 , 1995.) That document called for the Administration to present annually a comprehensive science and technology budget to be considered as a whole before being referred to different congressional committees. The Board says this “could lead to a better alignment of expenditures with respect to national priorities.” On the issue of setting priorities, the NSB finds that “no agreed upon method exists for carrying out this task.” It recalls suggestions of an earlier Academy report (see FYI #90 , 1993), which recommended allocating research resources so the U.S. remains “among the leaders in all major fields of science and the leader in selected major fields.” Although the Board endorses these guidelines, it “believes that they may not go far enough” to determine the optimal level of investment, and urges “further study...before a particular methodology for setting priorities is adopted.” The paper concludes by warning that “although many scientists consider the task [of priority-setting across disciplines] both undesirable and undoable, the National Science Board believes that this difficult task will become increasingly important and must be faced over the next few years.” The Board “offers its assistance on this critical task in any way that the President and the Congress would find helpful.”